Mohs Appropriate Use Criteria Scores and Treatment of Keratinocyte Carcinoma: Review of 11,145 Tumors
Main Article Content
Keywords
appropriate use criteria, mohs micrographic surgery, skin cancer, keratinocyte carcinoma
Abstract
Background: Various methods are available for treatment of keratinocyte carcinomas (KCs). The Mohs appropriate use criteria (AUC) score was developed to quantify the appropriateness of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) based on multiple tumor and patient characteristics.
Objectives: Stratify KCs by treatment modality used and compare to Mohs AUC score.
Methods: Conducted a retrospective review of 11,145 consecutive KCs between 01/2017 and 12/2021, comparing associated Mohs AUC score with modality selected.
Results: The average Mohs AUC score for all KCs combined was 7.1 with 8714 (78.2%) qualifying for MMS via AUC score. However, MMS was only done on 2813 (32.3%) of KCs. Excisional surgery was used to treat 4580 (41.1%) of KCs, 2777 (24.9%) were treated with electrodesiccation and curettage (ED&C), and 732 (6.6%) were treated with biopsy only. Of those KCs treated with excision, ED&C, or a biopsy, 70.7%, 70.7%, and 72.4% reached an “appropriate” Mohs AUC score for MMS respectively.
Limitations: This is a single private practice, with two board certified dermatologists
Conclusions: Mohs AUC score can help determine if a KC warrants MMS; however, in our practice, MMS was necessary for only 32.3% of the KCs that qualified based on the Mohs AUC score.
References
2. Chong T, Tristani-Firouzi P, Bowen GM, Hadley ML, Duffy KL. Mohs appropriate use criteria: retrospectively applied to nonmelanoma skin cancers at a single academic center. Dermatol Surg. 2015;41(8):889-895. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000000412
3. Amthor Croley JA. Current controversies in mohs micrographic surgery. Cutis. 2019;104(4):E29-E31.
4. Alsaif A, Hayre A, Karam M, Rahman S, Abdul Z, Matteucci P. Mohs Micrographic Surgery Versus Standard Excision for Basal Cell Carcinoma in the Head and Neck: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus. 2021;13(11):e19981. doi:10.7759/cureus.19981
5. Asgari MM, Olson JM, Alam M. Needs assessment for Mohs micrographic surgery. Dermatol Clin. 2012 Jan;30(1):167-75. doi:10.1016/j.det.2011.08.010.
6. Dinehart SM, Pollack SV. Mohs micrographic surgery for skin cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 1989;16(4):257-265. doi:10.1016/0305-7372(89)90045-5
7. Drake LA, Dinehart SM, Goltz RW, et al. Guidelines of care for Mohs micrographic surgery. American Academy of Dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;33(2 Pt 1):271-278. doi:10.1016/0190-9622(95)90261-9
8. Mohs FE. Chemosurgical treatment of external cancer: a microscopically controlled method of excision. SD J Med Pharm. 1950;3(6):161-166.
9. American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, et al. AAD/ACMS/ASDSA/ASMS 2012 appropriate use criteria for Mohs micrographic surgery: a report of the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(10):1582-1603. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4725.2012.02574.x
10. Coleman WP. Introduction. Appropriate use criteria for Mohs surgery. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(10):1581. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4725.2012.02555.x
11. Coldiron B. Commentary: Implementation of the appropriate-use criteria will not increase Mohs micrographic surgery utilization. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71(1):36-37. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2013.11.049
12. Coldiron B, Storrs P. Why appropriate use criteria for Mohs micrographic surgery? J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67(4):551. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2012.07.006
13. Higgins HW, Capobianco S, Lee KC. Recurrent Tumors Referred for Mohs Micrographic Surgery: A 12-Year Experience at a Single Academic Center. Dermatol Surg. 2017;43(12):1418-1422. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000001220
14. Stuart SE, Schoen P, Jin C, et al. Tumor recurrence of keratinocyte carcinomas judged appropriate for Mohs micrographic surgery using Appropriate Use Criteria. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(6):1131-1138.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2016.12.045
15. Ruiz ES, Karia PS, Morgan FC, Liang CA, Schmults CD. Multiple Mohs micrographic surgery is the most common reason for divergence from the appropriate use criteria: A single institution retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75(4):830-831. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2016.06.032
16. Stancut E, Melvin OG, Griffin RL, Phillips CB, Huang CC. Institutional Adherence to Current Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria With Reasons for Nonadherence and Recommendations for Future Versions. Dermatol Surg. 2022;48(3):290-292. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000003369
17. Renzi MA, Belcher M, Brod B, et al. Assessment of Functionality in Elderly Patients When Determining Appropriate Treatment for Nonmelanoma Skin Cancers. Dermatol Surg. 2020;46(3):319-326. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000002028
18. Blechman AB, Patterson JW, Russell MA. Application of Mohs micrographic surgery appropriate-use criteria to skin cancers at a university health system. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71(1):29-35. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2014.02.025
19. Brodell RT. JAAD Game Changers∗: Application of Mohs micrographic surgery appropriate-use criteria to skin cancers at a university health system. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(5):1376. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.04.048
20. Croley JA, Joseph AK, Wagner RF. Discrepancies in the Mohs Micrographic Surgery appropriate use criteria. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82(2):e55. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.11.064
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY): lets others distribute and copy the article, to create extracts, abstracts, and other revised versions, adaptations or derivative works of or from an article (such as a translation), to include in a collective work (such as an anthology), to text or data mine the article, even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the author(s), do not represent the author as endorsing their adaptation of the article, and do not modify the article in such a way as to damage the author's honor or reputation.
Authors retain copyright in their work and license the publisher to publish the content. The publisher is the National Society for Cutaneous Medicine, with production and publishing support provided by OJS, Open Journal Systems,see https://pkp.sfu.
Prior to January 2022, authors transferred copyright to the National Society for Cutaneous Medicine. However, all articles are freely available to anyone in the world. There are no subscription fees, page charges, or article processing charges.